Dragon Age - Might Not Catch with Console Gamers

While I appreciate the sentiment that players want their PC Game with depth and complexity, the gratuitous hatred for console games heaped out here is at the point where it is just frikkin' silly.

Here's a thought. If you can manage it? Grab yourself a nice HDTV and a 360 or PS3 (in the end, you will probably want both - but just one will do for now). Pick up a bunch of used games for cheap and maybe a new triple A title that catches your eye.

Play em, then play 'em some more. Relax. Put your feet up. You'll find pretty quickly that all this cloud of PC vs. Console bullshit disappates fairly quickly when put to the test of just playing the damn things.

I'm not saying that the complexity of Civ 4 will suddenly be rediscovered while playing your copy of Civ Revolution. But if you kick the tires on, say, Valkyria Chronicles for the PS3, you'll probably find that there are as many tactical choices in that game as you ever had in most of the vaunted RPGs that have been enshrined here in the Temple of the RPG Gaming Gods.

Most of all? If you get a console and start to really play it and use it? You'll find that your gaming options increase greatly and you end up playing more games and having more fun talking about them, too.

Some games work better on a console, too. For example, I could never get into Oblivion on the PC. Try as I could, it just wasn't for me. I heaped scorn and abuse upon it from time-to-time in my PC superiority complex days, too.

Lately, I have bought the Oblivion: Game of the Year edition recently on the 360 for $10. (Main game and both expansions. Did I mention used console games are cheap as hell?)

Know what? Oblivion plays >>better<< on my 360 than on my uber gaming PC. I don't mean load times and graphic immersion. I mean the overall flow and gameplay just FEELS better on the couch than in front of a monitor. I don't know why that would be so, but I am finding it to be true nonetheless. Oblivion? Fun and very enjoyable game. I apologize for my snide comments about it made over past years, too.

Seriously. A 360 costs so frikkin little these days. It's cheap as hell to give it a real try and put aside your prejudices. So give it a try. You might find the gulf between the platforms and the games you profess to love and hate is not so very big after all.

Steel_Wind said:

Know what? Oblivion plays >>better<< on my 360 than on my uber gaming PC. I don't mean load times and graphic immersion. I mean the overall flow and gameplay just FEELS better on the couch than in front of a monitor. I don't know why that would be so, but I am finding it to be true nonetheless.

Click to expand...

I don't want to be rude, but you just described the sore point everyone is talking about in this thread very well, even if I don't follow your conclusion. Oblivion had controls that were optimized for the console (no wonder you think it plays better on the 360 - it does). It had those same freaking console-optimized controls for the PC. And the few additional PC controls that Morrowind still had were thrown out of the PC version of Oblivion.

A PC can do more than that. There are more keys on a keyboard than on a game controller, so there's no need to disable all of those. You can build more options into the game this way, plus you have to adjust the menu.

Of course, this produces costs. Nobody doubts that you can have lots of fun with console games. If you read these forums closely, you will meet quite a few console fans here. It's also no secret that most people are perfectly fine with the options a console controller gives them. But some people like their game options slightly more complex, and a PC has a few advantages in this regard. This might not be the majority of the market, but all what people here want is, if you make a PC version of your game, please, use the additional options!

Which means that the negative voices in this thread are afraid that the same thing that happened to Oblivion will happen to Dragon Age (see, now I said it ). It might be a matter of costs, or a matter of contract (the console company demands "no extra content for the PC version"), but the result is not preferable to my play style.

Benedict said:

And ironically they're probably going to end up doing more for the hardcore rpg market than anyone else, they'll just do it indirectly. Bioware's games are like an entry drug that'll swell the pool of serious users and make production of more serious rpgs commercially viable.

Click to expand...

I can't think of any other rpg company other then Bethesda(who makes a different style of rpg) and that is scarey....I know there are indie companies but they do not have teh resources these giants have. I love the indies though as anyone who knows me knows.

I personally enjoy the cutscenes when you talk to an NPC much better then the ones they used in BG2.

rune_74 said:

I can't think of any other rpg company other then Bethesda(who makes a different style of rpg) and that is scarey....I know there are indie companies but they do not have teh resources these giants have. I love the indies though as anyone who knows me knows.

I personally enjoy the cutscenes when you talk to an NPC much better then the ones they used in BG2.

Click to expand...

I have to say I wasn't as fussed about either of the baldur's gates as others seem to have been. Good solid games but nothing that stuck out.

Not many major rpg stables any more I agree, I hope that CD Projeckt grows and that piranha Bytes drags itself away from the whole jowood fiasco to become strong again. Aside from the possibility of a true gothic three or a decent witcher sequel there's nothing mainstream that appeals at all.

But then we've got Age of Decadence, Scars of War, Frayed Knights, Purgatorio, Mysteries of Westgate, another Eschalon, hopefully a new IP from Spiderweb, there's an embarrassment of riches of indie games in the pipeline. In light of that I'm not too fussed if Dragon Age or any existing license milking from the mainstream games doesn't go anywhere, there's seeds of hope for a whole new era of rpgs to come in now that indie development's a real possibility, and fresh indie development of that sort is always going to be more mold breaking than high budget releases.

Steel_Wind said:

Seriously. A 360 costs so frikkin little these days. It's cheap as hell to give it a real try and put aside your prejudices. So give it a try. You might find the gulf between the platforms and the games you profess to love and hate is not so very big after all.

Click to expand...

I've got one. Didn't get into Oblivion on it, didn't get into fallout on it, quite got into Fable II but only in a half hearted way.

HD TV, HDMI Cable, several high budget releases with stunning graphics to play on the xbox and what am I playing? Geneforge 5 on the pc.

Steel_Wind said:

Seriously. A 360 costs so frikkin little these days. It's cheap as hell to give it a real try and put aside your prejudices. So give it a try. You might find the gulf between the platforms and the games you profess to love and hate is not so very big after all.

Click to expand...

The two groups of customers are cast in obvious opposition. They're both competing for developer's attention. It's like Mac vs. PC. Remember all those Mac owners years ago and how they felt when they used to go out and try to shop for software? Their variety was restricted. It sucked back then for them, and that's how it's starting to suck right now for us now.

Gamers buy state-of-the-art machines that cost a whole lot more than a 360 and would like to think their investment is worthwhile. It's annoying when the software you want runs even better on a cheapo console.

It didn't used to be this way. I owned an original Sega and enjoyed it but sold it after I bought my first PC, because PC games were even better. And that made perfect sense since my Sega only cost me about $150 while my PC cost me about $1,300 (Dell x360).

Back then I wanted to enjoy using my PC! I still do! What's so silly about that?

I've got several state of the art gaming PCs (six of em actually). And I got a PS3 and two 360s. (I got a new 360 to attach to my computer monitor so I can plug a XFPS adapter into it for playing FP shooters with a mouse. I'm old )

Point is: this whole "justify my investment" debate isn't worth it. I got off that treadmill. Screw it.

Now I just play the game I want on the platform I want and I don't have to justify anything other than my like or dislike for a game.

Sometimes, it's not entirely clear to me what platform I should be getting a game for, mind you. As I mentioned earlier, I didn't like Oblivion on the PC at all. But on the 360 it's a damned fun game. I wasn't much of a fan of Fallout 3 on the PC either - though I readily confess that I did not give it all of the chance that the game really deserves. (WotLK distracted me at the time).

For all that, my sneaking suspicion, especially after my recent rapprochement with Oblivion on the 360 is that I would probably prefer playing FO3 on the 360 or, yes, even on my PS3.

Whatever. I don't care. I don't need to justify my investment in any of my numerous systems. I have the money; I spend it on my toys and dev machines and that's that. Now I just play the game to play the game. It's liberating to break free of these arguments and just play the damned games. Really. It is.

My purpose in playing a game might sometimes be more "research oriented" than most posters here might share (i.e., sometimes I buy a game to look at it from a game design perspective instead of just buying it to enjoy playing it for the game it is), but that motivation aside, I don't expect that I'm that much different from most of you.

There's nothing silly about enjoying a PC or PC Games. We all agree on that. What we perhaps don't all agree on is that there is nothing silly about enjoying console games, either. My point? There is nothing silly about enjoying both and, indeed, there is very much to recommend it. Do yourself a big favour and give it a try.

rune_74 said:

How does that make your arguement? Wow, counter a question with a question. No, non of their characters will be in hamlet 3(joke) but they did the job for what was needed and they did it pretty well where it was not distracting. So...list these games of deep characters. I'm waiting.

Click to expand...

Because your question was inane? Because you always counter questions of good writing in games with some ridiculous stupidity along the line of "Is this Shakespeare? Can you list games with writing you think will win awards?" Mind you, I doubt you're a person who reads Shakespeare in his spare time (much less understand the nuances--most likely your only exposure to Shakespeare was the mandatory bits in the classroom, or a movie adaptation, or a cliff's notes version) or "literary" fiction to begin with. Do you?

TW (yes, even with the dodgy translation: sometimes brilliance will shine through despite a language barrier--whereas, even with perfectly correct dialogue delivered through "next-gen" cinematic cutscenes and flawless lip-sync can still be utter dross), MotB (even if it's "only" an expansion and the overall word count is much smaller) and KotOR2 (even in its unfinished state) all have better writing and more multi-dimensional characters than anything Bioware's ever excreted. But I'm afraid I don't think much of your ability to distinguish between Bioware's or even Bethesda's mediocrity and good writing, so it's a pointless "argument" in any case.

There's nothing silly about enjoying a PC or PC Games. We all agree on that. What we perhaps don't all agree on is that there is nothing silly about enjoying console game, either. My point? There is nothing silly about enjoying both and, indeed, there is very much to recommend it. Do yourself a big favour and give it a try.

Click to expand...

I sincerely think you're underestimating people here if you think they consider console games inherently silly.

I know I don't, and I'm happy with my Xbox 360.

That said, I prefer playing Oblivion on my PC - and it performs better by a very large factor, not to mention the mod scene aspect. I suspect this is because I know how to optimise performance and I remember that the Xbox version is hard-set to much lower visual settings than is possible on the PC. Also, I can't stand the slow load times present on most consoles - but then it wasn't possible to install games to the HDD back when I played it on my Xbox.

But that's largely irrelevant.

The problem - for some of us - is the general perception of the mainstream, held by publishers and developers alike. It's supremely obvious that genres of traditionally high complexity and depth are getting less deep and less complex as the years go by.

That doesn't mean they're "dumb" or that they're not enjoyable - it simply means they're not what they used to be. Lots of people don't mind that, but some of us do - because we're enthusiastic about complexity and the depth of gameplay. It doesn't make us better or superior - but I think it DOES give us the right to be sad and lament the changes.

Especially because I see many of these changes happen NOT because they make the games better, but because they make the games SELL better. Those two things are not the same - and that's why I'm calling Bioware sellouts, just like so many other AAA developers. Not because there's anything wrong or bad about that, but simply because that's how I see it. It's up to the individual to determine for himself if it's a good or bad thing to lessen creative control because you want more money.

About console games being "silly" or "dumb" - well I don't think so.

But there are certain limitations that you can't pretend aren't there (well, you can - but it won't change anything) - like memory and storage capacity. Beyond that, we have the console controller versus the mouse/keyboard combo on the PC. The lack of a keyboard means SEVERELY restricted options for interface interaction, and as such we very often see games simplified - because they need to adapt to the controller.

Again, that doesn't mean you can't have a deep or complex game on a console, it simply means it's a MUCH greater challenge to design such a game and adapt its controls to the controller. Which, unfortunately, typically results in reduced complexity and depth - both because of this issue - but also because of the general perception of what the mass market wants.

Dragon Age will undoubtedly be a decent CRPG - but there's no way it will sidestep the mass market requirements. EA simply wouldn't allow that to happen, and as such we can surely expect a lot of hand-holding and flashing quest objectives.

Beyond that, I still can't see how they will develop two entirely different versions, because it would be too costly. The logical conclusion MUST be that they're either accepting the losses on consoles (MOST unlikely) or they're going to "dumb" it down for both versions until they reach a workable compromise.

I simply don't see any other way, and no employee will convince me otherwise considering the history of Bioware - no matter how "unbiased" he claims to be.

Essaliad said:

Because your question was inane? Because you always counter questions of good writing in games with some ridiculous stupidity along the line of "Is this Shakespeare? Can you list games with writing you think will win awards?" Mind you, I doubt you're a person who reads Shakespeare in his spare time (much less understand the nuances--most likely your only exposure to Shakespeare was the mandatory bits in the classroom, or a movie adaptation, or a cliff's notes version) or "literary" fiction to begin with. Do you?

TW (yes, even with the dodgy translation: sometimes brilliance will shine through despite a language barrier--whereas, even with perfectly correct dialogue delivered through "next-gen" cinematic cutscenes and flawless lip-sync can still be utter dross), MotB (even if it's "only" an expansion and the overall word count is much smaller) and KotOR2 (even in its unfinished state) all have better writing and more multi-dimensional characters than anything Bioware's ever excreted. But I'm afraid I don't think much of your ability to distinguish between Bioware's or even Bethesda's mediocrity and good writing, so it's a pointless "argument" in any case.

Click to expand...

God you're a pretentous twit. You try and write like you have some great intelligence we should all bow to. And anyone who does not bow to your so called "Wisdom" is obviously unable to comprehend anything you have to say. There was some very awful scenes in the witcher and yes I thought it was a good game. But, was it translation or is that a convenient excuse?

I assume you can sit at home and think by excreting what you think is pure intelligence you actually make a difference. Most times you come out and attack devs and anyone who has a different view from yours where you have to come down from your pedestal to explain to us "slow" people since we obviously cannot understand basic sentances. My ability to decide what is good writing and excellent writing is just fine thanks, and your thoughts on my abilities really do not matter. I have yet to see any game have as good writing as say Shakespear(You mean to tell me there where plays?), tolkien or any other good writer out there...thing is a book is very structured and you never have to worry about what the reader will do, I bet alot of writers would like that in a game.

Essaliad said:

Mind you, I doubt you're a person who reads Shakespeare in his spare time (much less understand the nuances--most likely your only exposure to Shakespeare was the mandatory bits in the classroom, or a movie adaptation, or a cliff's notes version) or "literary" fiction to begin with.

Click to expand...

I did so, and I do know what you think of me.

Even worse, I read - as a hobby ! - ancient greek and roman philosophers and whatnot !

At university, I attended a greek course about the Odyssey - I was the only one who couldn't speak and read a work in Greek language there !

But no matter of that, this course was very interesting, because I (and the whole group) were pointed at things I wouldn've discovered alone bevore, by mere reading.

One day, I'll return to that. I even plan to buy commented editions about that. I'm highly interested in what the people were thinking back then - their thought-patterns and how they regarded, perceived all around them - and distilled it into books, tragedies, comedy, sometimes using "tools" of performance we don't use anymore (the choir of ancient Greek tragedies, for example. No-one uses choirs anymore, as far as I know. One in my case unexpected example of recent times are the slugs in "Flushed Away").

You try to imagine how people act and think; you try to determine that via the entries they write here.

But these entries are only ONE puzzle-piece of many which make up people.

You just use those which are available to you - and these are not all. There are - for example - almost no entries about private life herein !


And that is the flaw in your way/try of determining how people are: You do have too few puzzle pieces to be able to get a *complete* picture.

And therefore you fail.

This is getting a little too personal. CUT IT OUT, OR BE CUT OUT!! Consider this a friendly warning, next time you get infractions and deletions!!

Sorry Corwin, I think I over reacted in the response to him, I took the bait. Won't happen again.

PS Did you get my message?

I get lots of messages, which one was it?

OFF TOPIC: about making the eschalon interview post a news item...I wrote an interview with basilisk for another site....but thought people might be interested.

Yep and both Maga and I posted it at the same time and I can't find a delete button. Might have to wait for an admin or Dhruin to fix it!!

hahha, double advertising woohoo!

Benedict said:

I have to say I wasn't as fussed about either of the baldur's gates as others seem to have been. Good solid games but nothing that stuck out.

Click to expand...

Benedict, I agree with everything you said in your post except this. I have to ask you, when did you play Baldur's Gate 1 and 2? When it first came out or much later? If you played it when it first came out then I would like to know what you considered (back then) a game that stuck out?

Whenever someone says that it wasn't innovative or fun or like you said nothing stuck out or whatever, I seriously would like to know what they think is fun or a supreme example of an RPG(back then). I think there was Realms of Arkania, Betrayal at Krondor and Darksun that were worth noting, probably more but those are the ones that I can think of right now, but still Baldur's Gate sure as hell stuck out among the RPGs back then.

If you played it much later then I can understand. Baldur's Gate changed a lot in the rpg genre and a lot of the games stole or were influenced heavily by BG. If that is the case then ignore everything I just asked

What I was referring when I mention baldurs gate before benedict was the actual interaction with NPC's. With the newer bioware games I really enjoy the cutscenes that set the mood. Don't get me wrong though, baldurs gate had great dialogue but did not have that dynamic feel you got from the later games cutscenes.

I honestly believe that even if I didn't play Baldur's Gate 1 or 2 until recently, they would still rank among the top 10 crpgs I've ever played, and I've played a lot.

If a game is truly great, then it shouldn't matter if you didn't get to play it until years after it was released. I didn't play System Shock 1 for the first time until about 3 years ago. It still blew my mind, and I could easily understand why so many people consider it one of the best computer games ever.